[Advaita-l] Paul Hacker on Avidya in Brahma Sutras

Kuntimaddi Sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Sat May 21 13:30:52 EDT 2022
Previous message (by thread): [Advaita-l] Paul Hacker on Avidya in Brahma Sutras
Next message (by thread): [Advaita-l] Paul Hacker on Avidya in Brahma Sutras
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Venkaraman - PraNAms
You have two definitions for Brahman - parallel construction with each one corresponding to the other. 
Sat chit ananda is brahman
Satyam jnaanam anantam brahma
I think Shankara uses the anantatvam to show that Sat and chit are not attributes as they are description of the infiniteness. 
He simple says - anantatvaat, if I remember.
I think Goudpaada argues that perceptability, utility, tansactability do not establish the reality in the Vaitatya prakarana. What establishes is nityatvam - that applies since it is anantatvam. That is an indirect argument. 
Not sure if I have answered your question. Of course from the logic point anantam eva anandam since any limitations cause unhappiness. 
Hari Om!
Sadananda





 

    On Saturday, May 21, 2022, 01:19:23 PM EDT, S Venkatraman via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
 
 Namaste Sadaji,

I have been looking for a scriptural source for the statement, ‘Anantham eva aanandam’. Could you please point it out to me? Thanks. 

Venkatraman



Sent from my iPhone

> On 21-May-2022, at 10:17 PM, Kuntimaddi Sadananda via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> PraNAms to everybody 
> 
>  
> 
> I have been following the arguments to the extent I canunderstand.
> 
>  
> 
> I am not sure why Bhasarji is keeping silent.
> 
>  
> 
> In the final analysis, as I see, the fundamentals remain thesame - whether the avidya is bhaava ruupa or abhaava ruupa. The truth is - I donot know my true nature hence I am taking myself other than what I am - I havehalf baked knowledge - I know that I exist and I know that I am a consciousentity - what I do not know is I am also the source of happiness - the lastfact arises since I do not recognize that I am that limitless Brahman (anantam)and scripture says anantam eva anandam - or limitless alone is pureunconditional happiness. Thus not knowing my complete nature, I commit the mistakeof seeking happiness by fulfilling desires and thus get into a vicious circle.If this is the case, would it make any difference if my not knowing fully aboutmyself is bhava ruupa or abhaava ruupa? The solution to the problem remains thesame - I have to know that I am pure Brahman and hence not only I am sat andchit but also ananda swaruupam. End of the story.
> 
>  
> 
> However, I would ask one question out of curiosity.Providing three cases.
> 
>  
> 
> 1. Someone asked me if I know Chemistry. I have never heardof it. I would ask back what is it? I do not know? - He gives me some descriptionsto arise my curiosity and ask me to go a Chemistry teacher to learn. Chemistryknowledge destroys my chemistry ignorance - but of course not my Physicsignorance. Likewise, when someone points out logically that I am the verysource of happiness that I am seeking and to know my true nature scripture asksme to go to that teacher who knows the Self-Knowledge. Of course what good willit do to me, if he knows about himself, since I want to know about myself andnot about his-self? 
> 
>  
> 
> Anticipating my question, scriptures the self that he knowsthe self in all - sarva bhuutastam aatmanam sarva bhuutani ca aatmani.Convinced by the argument, I naturally try to approach a qualified teacher. 
> 
>  
> 
> 2. I am sitting in a pitch dark room - I cannot seeanything. Someone asked if there is a chair in the room. All I can say is thatI do not know since I cannot see. It may be there or may not be there - theanswer is anirvacaneeyam. 
> 
>  
> 
> Now I ask is darkness covering the presence of absence ofthe objects so that I cannot see. Is it bhaavaruupa or abhaava ruupa. 
> 
>  
> 
> Of course, the fellow asks me how do you know that it isdark? I have to say 'I can see it is dark'. Sounds like bhaavaruupa.  I see that I cannot see anything - 
> 
>  
> 
> 3. Another case - In the deep sleep state, ignorance coverseverything since I do not know 'anything' - hence no desire for anything - na kanchana kaamam kaamayata - saysMandukya. 
> 
>  
> 
> Hence I have a complete absence of all subject-objectduality.
> 
>  
> 
> A question was posed in Upadesha sahasree (I think) when thestudent claims that since I do not know anything including the existence ofmyself - it proves that the deep sleep state proves that I am nothing. For thatthe teacher responds - your very question proves your existence in the deepsleep state since you know that you did not know anything during that state. 
> 
>  
> 
> Is ignorance of everything including myself (my mind, Ipresume here) - is it bhaava ruupa or abhaavaruupa. Next question - would thatmake any difference.
> 
>  
> 
> Could not resist posing these questions out of curiosity.
> 
>  
> 
> Hari Om!
> 
>  
> 
> Sadananda
> 
>    On Saturday, May 21, 2022, 11:50:41 AM EDT, Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
> 
> I believe SSS generally responds best to the various astute comments
> offered by Sri Dwivedula, Bhat & Venkatraghavan. Here is link to a short
> reflection in SSS's, The Heart of Sri Samkara, his original abhava rupa
> avidya = adhyasa argument. ""In truth, Ignorance is not the effect or cause
> of anything, so the question of its cause is illegitimate". Through the
> reasoning contained in section 131, the entire question of need for an
> efficient positive cause is rendered moot. In the second link from the same
> text, SSS discusses cause of waking with some profound insight. Please
> consider -
> https://archive.org/details/TheHeartOfSriSankara/page/n161/mode/2up
> https://archive.org/details/TheHeartOfSriSankara/page/n65/mode/2up?q=39&view=theater
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:41 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Namaste Sri Michael
>> I think you got the general point being made that it's not only in the case
>> of brahmAtma GYAnam but also in empirical cases like rope-snake etc that
>> the idea of avidyA as a bhAvarUpa (or yat kincit bhAvarUpa) is being
>> maintained.
>> 
>> The consistent position is that all vRttis of bhrama GYAnam (of even
>> physical objects like snakes on ropes etc experienced, are a modification
>> or vikAra) of avidyA.
>> 
>> The basic epistemological process of knowledge in vedAnta is different from
>> how most people would view it. It involves removal or destruction of an
>> existent entity called avidyA (centred on that particular object) by a
>> corresponding vRtti. When the knowledge occurs and a rope is perceived as a
>> rope etc., the vRtti which destroyed the ignorance of the rope revealing it
>> for what it is,  is referred to as an 'antaHkaraNa vRtti'. And when a rope
>> is perceived as a snake, the avidyA itself is modified to assume the form
>> of the snake - it's an 'avidyA vRtti'.
>> 
>> The divergence between avidyA being a bhAvarUpa or abhAvarUpa entity, is
>> better discussed with empirical cases of bhrama GYAnam like rope-snake etc.
>> It's not just w.r.t Brahman that such an ontological aspect to avidyA is
>> being asserted by mainstream Advaita vedAnta.
>> 
>> Lastly the question of whether adhyAsa itself is bhAvarUpa or not is moot.
>> If it is, then it cannot be sublated, as per the argument against avidyA
>> being bhAvarUpA. If adhyAsa is given empirical reality , then the same can
>> be said for avidyA too.
>> 
>> Also, there is an idea that all cause-effect is "within time" and hence we
>> cannot ask the question "what causes adhyAsa". However this is not tenable
>> because questions such as "what causes the arising of time itself" can be
>> logically and meaningfully framed and need to be addressed, which is
>> mUlaaavidyA etc., do.
>> 
>> Om
>> Raghav
>> 
>> 
>> Om
>> Raghav
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, 20 May, 2022, 2:43 am Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Sri Venkatraghavan, namaste
>>> *Something from nothing is good epistemology, bad ontology. avidya is an
>>> epistemological error upon an ontological reality. An epistemological
>>> agrahana commonly produces an effect - not knowing the train's schedule;
>>> forgetting the wife's birthday. Name and form is all that accounts for
>> what
>>> we call jagat.    *
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 12:40 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Namaste Praveen ji,
>>>> Indeed. That adhyAsa is a samsArahetu cannot be in doubt - asya
>>>> *anarthahetoh* prahANAya AtmaikyavidyApratipattaye sarve vedAntA
>>>> Arabhyante, says the bhAShyakAra.
>>>> 
>>>> If such an adhyAsa is anartha hetu, it must be bhAvarUpa. If that is
>> not
>>>> accepted, then it will be a case of a non-existent thing leading to a
>>>> bhAvarUpa samsAra consisting of kartRtva / bhoktRtva / rAga/ / dveSha.
>> So
>>>> whatever is the type of bhAvarUpatva that is conceded by ajnAna
>>>> abhAvavAdin-s for adhyAsa and samsAra, is the same bhAvarUpatva that is
>>>> accepted ajnAna bhAvavAdin-s.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:15 AM Praveen R. Bhat <
>> bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Namaste Venkatji,
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 11:13 AM Venkatraghavan S <
>> agnimile at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Re the contention that bhAvarUpatva of avidyA is a post Shankara
>>>>>> construct, there is a very interesting passage in the bRhadAraNyaka
>>>> bhAShya
>>>>>> to the mantra 4.3.20 where the bhAvrUpatva of avidyA is indicated:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> तथा अविद्यायामप्युत्कृष्यमाणायाम् , तिरोधीयमानायां च विद्यायाम् ,
>>>>>> अविद्यायाः फलं प्रत्यक्षत एवोपलभ्यते — ‘अथ यत्रैनं घ्नन्तीव
>> जिनन्तीव’
>>>> इति ।
>>>>>> When ignorance increases and knowledge is suppressed, the results of
>>>>>> ignorance are directly perceived i.e. - "now, if he feels like he
>> was
>>> as
>>>>>> though being killed, or as though being overpowered".
>>>>>> 
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for the Brihad bhAShya quotations. There is another issue
>> that I
>>>>> keep pointing out to those who object to avidyA being bhAvarUpa that
>> if
>>>> it
>>>>> is abhAvarUpa, then it cannot be any kind of kAraNa to anything, let
>>>> alone
>>>>> saMsAra. If they argue that mAyA, "different from avidyA" is the
>>> kAraNa,
>>>>> still adhyAsa has to be accepted as a kAraNa for individuality. If
>>>> adhyAsa
>>>>> is same as avidyA, avidyA being abhAvarUpa, and any kind of kAraNa,
>>> would
>>>>> leave us with no possibility of rejecting shUnyavAda wholesale! A
>>>>> non-existent avidyA/ adhyAsa contributing to any saMsaraNa or
>> delusion
>>> or
>>>>> whatever it contributes to, is no better than shUnyavAda.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Somewhere in Taittiriyabhashya, if memory serves right, Bhagavan
>>>>> Bhashyakara says that even Naiyyayika's prAgabhAva is different from
>>> this
>>>>> shUnya of yours to a Bauddha pUrvapakSha, the former being a padArtha
>>>> while
>>>>> the latter complete non-existence.
>>>>> 
>>>>> gurupAdukAbhyAm,
>>>>> --Praveen R. Bhat
>>>>> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one
>>> know
>>>>> That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>>> 
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>>> 
>>>> For assistance, contact:
>>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>> 
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>> 
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> 
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> 
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
Previous message (by thread): [Advaita-l] Paul Hacker on Avidya in Brahma Sutras
Next message (by thread): [Advaita-l] Paul Hacker on Avidya in Brahma Sutras
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list